[normhead]

It *is* difficult to see differences between lenses at that size, but honestly it is difficult to see a great deal of difference between a good and a great lens, at most "reasonable" output sizes and shooting conditions.

My experience would be that the difference between a good and great lens can be obscured by individual taste. Despite the efforts of many Zeiss shooters, I have never seen a run of tests where I like the Zeiss images the best. They are expensive, they are sharp, but I don't like the images.The DFA* 50 is just as sharp, but I prefer the images based on cleaner out of focus areas and transitions.

The definition of a great lens is so fluid as to be meaningless.

[Fluegel]

As far as I can tell Canon does this best in the 1Dx, and they have a separate AF unit with it's own processor. The Sony A9 is the current challenger, but in my estimation it's not there yet. If I was going to leave a company off the list it would be Hasselblad. I've never seen an independent review of their tracking system.

Hasselblad goes a bit further than calculate and predict the spot of a moving subject.
The first generation of this system also selects the aperture that improves the chance of a subject in focus.
I used the first H series camera with this system some five years ago with excellent results.
Hasselblad changed and upgraded the H series so often that only few users of these cameras have a good view of the modifications through the years.

[Fenwoodian]

Despite the efforts of many Zeiss shooters, I have never seen a run of tests where I like the Zeiss images the best. They are expensive, they are sharp, but I don't like the images.

.

OK, we've all heard a lot about "your experience" in this thread. To your eye, Pentax lenses trump Zeiss lenses. This, you admit, is based on small jpg images you've seen on the Internet that were shot by other photographers.

Can I take a moment to share my experience? It happens to be the direct opposite of yours. I've owned all but one (15mm) of the Zeiss Classic lenses, and four of the Milvus lenses. I've Leitax adapted and tested more Zeiss ZF lenses to K mount than anyone not named David Llado in Spain. Also, I've owned just about all of the better Pentax lenses (with only two or three exceptions). Overall, to my eye, the Zeiss lenses are better in overall rendering and sharpness - in fact, I currently own only one Pentax lens (a large telephoto) and most of my main lenses are Zeiss.

Overall, Zeiss lenses cost more than Pentax lenses and are of newer designs. Newer and more expensive lenses are expected to be better than older and cheaper lenses, right?

[Racer X 69]

If it isn't try love view focusing.


Magnified love view is pretty good but it takes practice.

F4/K200mm - manual focus issues noted above, it can improve using good methods, but often a tripod may be needed for love view based focus.

Feel the love.

[Fluegel]

A good way to solve any focussing issues is to use the split screen once sold by KatzEye.
The K10d I bought recently was fitted with a KatzEys focussing screen.
It is a great improvement, not only the split but the lines in the screen make it easy to compose images.

Love view may be great to some, I stick with the view finder.

I agree with Fenwoodian. Carl Zeis lenses are excellent. That goes for recent designs.
Do not forget older lenses like the 150 Sonnar from the C series for Hasselblad.
That lens made a reputation as a fabulous lens for portraits.
My oldest Sonnar is exactly 60 years old and still in excellent condition.

[normhead]

I agree with Fenwoodian.

It was in discussion with Fenwoodian that I decided I didn't. Because of his going on I looked at quite few Zeiss images. In my onion the DFA* 50 1.4 is better than any Zeiss in it's range. I haven't investigated other FLs. But so far Pentax is 1 for 1 and Zeiss is 0 for 1, but at their prices, it's an academic exercise.

But then I shoot a lot of birds and other wildlife. Even with the partial focus of the F 1.7x AF adapter, on my Tamron 300, a smoother MF with a very short throw and the easiest to use MF I've ever used, you miss a lot of shots. Taking it off and going full AF does much better.

So the likelihood of my getting on the Zeiss bandwagon is starting from a negative position. Zeiss needs a win just to pull even. I'm not sure it even makes any sense to talk in generalities as opposed to specific focal lengths.

So that raises the next question, what FL would we look at to get Zeiss a win?

[Wheatfield]

My point about looking at other folks' images taken with different glass really applies more to overall rendering (which is my personal priority in what constitutes a "good" lens). I accept that unless those images can be enlarged (which depends on the uploaded sizes to Flickr et al), they won't tell much about the performance so far as sharpness and CA are concerned.

I'm not for one moment suggesting that a premium modern lens such as the D FA*50/1.4 doesn't perform better than an older mid-range model like the FA50/1.4. Without doubt, the D FA*50/1.4 walks all over the older model, and I remember your tests demonstrating this admirably, with no bias on your part. Similarly, my A-mount Sony Zeiss T* 24-70/2.8 ZA SSM walks rings around the humble Tamron 28-75/2.8 that I also own. This doesn't mean the older Pentax and Tamron lenses are "bad", but rather that the newer, pricier glass performs better, as well it should; and I'd certainly recommend that folks with the means should invest in really good glass... it's satisfying to use, and the results can be impressive. Importantly, though, a great photo can be taken with any of these lenses. Just as importantly, a bad photo will still be a bad photo even if it's taken with the best of them (though it will, admittedly, be sharper and have fewer aberrations).

You mention Instagram, and I'd agree that pretty much any lens (or phone camera) will do where shots are destined only for social media. But this is something of an extreme and, in the context of this thread, risks misleading folks into believing that's all old lenses are good for. I'd suggest that many older lenses (even some very inexpensive ones) used on modern cameras can produce output that looks good when reproduced at fairly sizeable dimensions - suitable, at least, for display in the home and worthy of appreciation at typical viewing distances by real people who are enjoying the image as a whole, not assessing the technical performance of the lens. Print the photo large enough, view it closely enough, and yes - the limitations will be apparent (though whether that matters will differ image to image, and viewer to viewer). Examine it on a 28" monitor at 100% reproduction from 18" and the limitations will be painfully obvious - especially if captured on a high resolution sensor such as that in the K-1 / K-1II. But that's the pixel-peeping trap of the modern photographer, and has little to do with the quality of the final image at the intended reproduction dimensions and viewing distance, unless we're talking about very big prints to be viewed at very short distances by very critical people. The audience and viewing conditions make a huge difference.

Older lenses perform just the same today as they always did. Two identical photos taken with the same lens on a 35mm film camera and 36MP Pentax K-1 respectively and printed to the same physical dimensions, will look more-or-less as good or bad when viewed at the same realistic viewing distance. If said lens was able to take great photos back in 19xx on a 35mm film camera, it's just as capable of taking great photos today on a K-1. If it sucked back then, it'll still suck today (and this will be especially apparent when pixel peeping on a big monitor).

One of my favourite photographers, Jane Bown, used almost exclusively an Olympus OM1 and Zuiko 85/2 lens for her later work. That lens is well-regarded, yet (from what I've read) not as sharp as some premium glass of the day from the likes of Zeiss, etc. I've viewed Ms Bown's work online, in many books and in gallery exhibition settings, and never once thought "Hmmm... nice photo, but it would have been better with a sharper lens". I can't say whether her Zuiko 85/2 was preventing her from being the best photographer she could be, but her photos look wonderful to me and her multitude of fans. Then again, I viewed them at typical distances to appreciate the images as intended - I wasn't poring over every detail up close to assess the technical performance of the glass.

My own recommendation for someone looking to be the best photographer they can be (and I try to do this myself, as I'm a million miles from reaching that goal, regardless of the glass I use) is to concentrate on subject, story (or message), light, composition, background, foreground etc. and develop the ability to fully utilise whatever camera and glass they own to effectively capture their vision. If we're being completely honest, most of us buy better equipment because we want rather than need it, even if we kid ourselves of the latter (I'm no different). Quality equipment is generally nicer (and, paradoxically, easier) to use, more robust, lasts well if looked after properly, and can produce technically better results in the right hands. But a bad photo will still be a bad photo, and a good photo still a good photo, regardless of the equipment used. A better performing lens and higher resolution camera will be more versatile at functional extremes, and will allow for larger printing and closer viewing distances... but they won't, IMHO, make someone a better photographer. They might, however, give your already-best-they-can-be photos an edge at larger reproduction sizes.

My point was that a person can't really tell much about how a lens will render anything from an image whose dimensions have been reduced 75% or more. When one does that to an image, softness magically turns into sharpness, rough bokeh can smooth out significantly, and the oversharpening that people tend to do can make OK bokeh look terrible, in addition to sharpening up an image that may, in reality, be pretty soft in the first place.
This is why I always shake my head when a question pops up about how good is a particular lens, and in answer, the thread is suddenly populated by dozens of small 900x1400 pixel images.

---------- Post added Mar 19th, 2020 at 08:42 AM ----------

.

OK, we've all heard a lot about "your experience" in this thread. To your eye, Pentax lenses trump Zeiss lenses. This, you admit, is based on small jpg images you've seen on the Internet that were shot by other photographers.

Can I take a moment to share my experience? It happens to be the direct opposite of yours. I've owned all but one (15mm) of the Zeiss Classic lenses, and four of the Milvus lenses. I've Leitax adapted and tested more Zeiss ZF lenses to K mount than anyone not named David Llado in Spain. Also, I've owned just about all of the better Pentax lenses (with only two or three exceptions). Overall, to my eye, the Zeiss lenses are better in overall rendering and sharpness - in fact, I currently own only one Pentax lens (a large telephoto) and most of my main lenses are Zeiss.

Overall, Zeiss lenses cost more than Pentax lenses and are of newer designs. Newer and more expensive lenses are expected to be better than older and cheaper lenses, right?

Thank you for helping make my point about the wrong information that can be gleaned from the internet if one isn't savvy about what squishing an image down to Facebook size can do to it. One must always be mindful of the agendas people may have as well. It is very easy to craft a "test" that makes a Coke bottle look as good as a Milvus.
Now, if Coke is your thing, all well and good, but if your "test" images and/or narratives are deceptive in that you are showing the Coke bottle to be the Real Thing, then you are doing no one any good, and may be causing some grief.

---

Last edited by Wheatfield; 03-19-2020 at 07:44 AM.

[Serkevan]

Wherefore have you been abandoned, oh "good enough"?

[Wheatfield]

Wherefore have you been abandoned, oh "good enough"?

Good enough is all the rungs on the ladder between not good enough and more than good enough. Everyone has to decide for themselves how tall that ladder is, how many rungs are on it, and how comfortable they are with climbing it.
The problem is that too many people, either in their desire to be helpful, or their desire to advance an agenda can and will lead people astray regarding where something should be on their own individual ladder.

[Serkevan]

Good enough is all the rungs on the ladder between not good enough and more than good enough. Everyone has to decide for themselves how tall that ladder is, how many rungs are on it, and how comfortable they are with climbing it.
The problem is that too many people, either in their desire to be helpful, or their desire to advance an agenda can and will lead people astray regarding where something should be on their own individual ladder.

Yes; and a lot of people seem overly fixated in insisting that their ladder is the correct one. As bad is compressing everything (or a "shootout" between an iPhone and a Canon 1D where they massage the test conditions to avoid stressing the phone at all*) as it is making an "accurate" test that says 'See? This [Insert brand] lens has unacceptable [insert flaw] at the very corners wide open if you print it one meter wide. CLEARLY this [insert other lens with 10x the price/size/weight, no discernible difference at A4, and slight differences at A2 size] is the superior option'. I mean, it's technically correct, but it's also misleading due to lack of nuance.


*That was hilarious from start to end. Not a single time did they produce a not-obviously-phone image, then claimed it was "almost as good as" the full frame.

[Wheatfield]

A good way to solve any focussing issues is to use the split screen once sold by KatzEye.
The K10d I bought recently was fitted with a KatzEys focussing screen.
It is a great improvement, not only the split but the lines in the screen make it easy to compose images.

Love view may be great to some, I stick with the view finder.

I agree with Fenwoodian. Carl Zeis lenses are excellent. That goes for recent designs.
Do not forget older lenses like the 150 Sonnar from the C series for Hasselblad.
That lens made a reputation as a fabulous lens for portraits.
My oldest Sonnar is exactly 60 years old and still in excellent condition.

I've become a big fan of LiveView with the 100% magnification feature, something I am, on the one hand surprised by, but on the other hand, realize it's a lot like coming home because of my view camera background. It's not for everything, to be sure, but I've been doing a lot of tabletop work lately and it is great for that, I can see it being beneficial for any scene that is relatively static.
Certainly for wide aperture portraiture it is going to be a boon, I do a lot of focus stacking, it's great for that, macro workers will find it helpful when the subject permits, and on and on.
Not much good for any situation where the subject is in any kind of motion, for that I will go back to the viewfinder every time.

---------- Post added Mar 19th, 2020 at 09:25 AM ----------

Yes; and a lot of people seem overly fixated in insisting that their ladder is the correct one. As bad is compressing everything (or a "shootout" between an iPhone and a Canon 1D where they massage the test conditions to avoid stressing the phone at all*) as it is making an "accurate" test that says 'See? This [Insert brand] lens has unacceptable [insert flaw] at the very corners wide open if you print it one meter wide. CLEARLY this [insert other lens with 10x the price/size/weight, no discernible difference at A4, and slight differences at A2 size] is the superior option'. I mean, it's technically correct, but it's also misleading due to lack of nuance.

My point exactly.

[luftfluss]

Oftentimes "good enough" is good enough until you experience better.

[Serkevan]

Oftentimes "good enough" is good enough until you experience better.

The assumption there is that "better" is one-dimensional and objective. I strongly disagree. There are always trade-offs.


I have experienced "better" (optically) than my owned telephoto lenses (from different brands). Unfortunately, they are either non-adaptable to a K-1, they are substantially heavier than my humble Tokina, or would ask me to drop a ridiculous amount of money. So, well, I can live without them - since most of the time there would be no practical difference compared to what I already have.

I have, on the opposite side of the spectrum IQ/size&weight, experienced a 'small' Sony setup with good IQ, great "automagic" AF and less weight (lens and body together) than the K-1 alone. Unfortunately, since ergonomics is not a word that Sony considers learning about, I'd rather wait for hell to freeze over than move over there.

[luftfluss]

The assumption there is that "better" is one-dimensional and objective. I strongly disagree. There are always trade-offs.


I have experienced "better" (optically) than my owned telephoto lenses (from different brands). Unfortunately, they are either non-adaptable to a K-1, they are substantially heavier than my humble Tokina, or would ask me to drop a ridiculous amount of money. So, well, I can live without them - since most of the time there would be no practical difference compared to what I already have.

I have, on the opposite side of the spectrum IQ/size&weight, experienced a 'small' Sony setup with good IQ, great "automagic" AF and less weight (lens and body together) than the K-1 alone. Unfortunately, since ergonomics is not a word that Sony considers learning about, I'd rather wait for hell to freeze over than move over there.

Every object ever made is a compromise.

If you are ascribing "better is one-dimensional and objective" to my statement, then you are off the mark. "Better" is, in part, subjective. "Better" is even situation-dependent. My Pentax A 400/5.6 is better than my Tamron 400/4 for working in thick brush, photographing butterflies, or even going into an unfamiliar area where I know I'll want a long tele but am not sure what the nature of the photography will be. This despite the fact that the Tamron 400/4 is both sharper and faster.

For some people, "better" is a finite thing - the spawn of a mad orgy of MTF charts and glowing website reviews. For others, "better" is that satisfied feeling one has when the pleasurable usage of the gear results in good photos. Either way, when you get to experience that "better", you don't forget it when you go back to what you consider to be "good enough".

[Serkevan]

Every object ever made is a compromise.

If you are ascribing "better is one-dimensional and objective" to my statement, then you are off the mark. "Better" is, in part, subjective. "Better" is even situation-dependent. My Pentax A 400/5.6 is better than my Tamron 400/4 for working in thick brush, photographing butterflies, or even going into an unfamiliar area where I know I'll want a long tele but am not sure what the nature of the photography will be. This despite the fact that the Tamron 400/4 is both sharper and faster.

For some people, "better" is a finite thing - the spawn of a mad orgy of MTF charts and glowing website reviews. For others, "better" is that satisfied feeling one has when the pleasurable usage of the gear results in good photos. Either way, when you get to experience that "better", you don't forget it when you go back to what you consider to be "good enough".

Yeah, I was off the mark . I of course agree that "good" is subjective and depends on the needs and wants - that's what I've said in several previous posts. I see what you mean, and agree to an extent (I would find it hard to go back to the K-7 after the K-1*); I posted mostly because I understood your point as implying that "good enough" stops being so after you experience something better... in my experience, while I can think "wow, this is so much better" for a while, I easily go back to being pretty satisfied with what I have. I'm not sure how much is from personality and how much is from adapting myself to the gear to work around any limitations it might have.


*Although to be fair, the K-7 drove me crazy enough with low light woes that I didn't consider it "good enough" for some months before buying the K-1.